coming up on you GTV a special session
of the unified government of Wyandotte
County Kansas City Kansas
[Music]
you
[Music]
you
go through and really this is just
information submitted to you we had the
clerical corrections to the budget
you
different areas that are in there get
that direction then seeking that we go
ahead and move to our executive session
on labor there's a chance to reconcile
everything from the yellow sheet before
we come then we'll come back down in
here and make sure we're in final format
for what's going into that yellow sheet
and then go through what the approval
documents will be this coming Thursday
so with that I'm gonna move right into
this and turn this over to Public Works
Department to Brannon Grover for
presentation on the benefit districts
thank you Doug mr. mayor commissioners
as Doug mentioned we wanted to bring
back some information to you guys
regarding the topic of the benefit
districts that were brought up for
coming up the first couple of slides we
have here are going to detail a little
bit of information about our benefit
district in general before we dive into
this specific instance that was brought
up first off we do have an official
policy for benefit for establishing a
benefit district it was brought before
us as a formal process in May of 1999 as
you can see on the screen it is a 17
step process that takes anywhere from a
year to a year and a half depending on
the size and complexity of the benefit
district the first step which has to be
done and is honestly the kickoff step
that is most often done by the
neighborhood groups is this informal
petition of interest in our policy it
states that only 50% of the population
or the residents inside of the
designated district return their
signature saying that they are in favor
of something like this and they are
aware that they could potentially bear
some cost on their property taxes once
that petition is turned into the UG we
then conduct a feasibility study that
takes into account the requests that are
clearly stated on the petition and the
validity of the signatures that were
turned in to make sure that the names on
the signature match the ownerships and
things like that this is currently the
step that we're at with the the benefit
district we'll discuss more later
after this step is finalized there is a
portion where the ug goes back to the
neighborhood groups and informs them of
what the feasibility study brought
forward so it'll be information about
what the district boundaries should be
based on what the popular the density of
signatures the potential cost of the
improvements to be made and the
potential break out of how much is taken
care of by the ug versus the population
or the residents that process usually
does take quite a bit longer than the
one month that it says up here just
because it takes time to arrange those
kind of neighborhood meetings and go
around and get those kind of signatures
several the other key steps to note is
that in step five this is where staff
brings back the final recommendation to
the Standing Committee to form the
district this is where you all approve
how much money we're willing to spend
and what years we want to allocate that
funding to but most of the rest of the
steps are either the legal steps that we
have to go through the authorized
resolution or finance it or the regular
construction type processes that we do
on a regular project so we don't really
need to touch on those too much as I
said in the beginning or towards the
beginning we're currently at the end of
step two we have completed a feasibility
study that has given us a few options
and we'll discuss a little bit about
that at a later meeting but we have
really looked into this in a more
thoughtful manner than just kind of
glancing over so background on the
specific instance for the TAS and
friendship by its benefit district for
those who don't know this area is over
on County Line Road about South 10th
Street this neighborhood group is going
to encompass a couple blocks on either
side of that and a couple blocks to the
north around ta @ it's an elementary
school some time prior to 2013 the
citizens fort did the end that step one
the informal petition of interest we
don't have a date on that because the
petition they sign it or they turn
doesn't have a date that they signed or
we don't have a date that we received
due to prior prior staff being here we
don't know when that exactly was but the
first instance that we see something
about this is in the 2013 budget we
place it in the CMI P and the amount of
$400,000 for 2018 this is this amount
based on the size of this district is
something would usually be associated
with the potential design of of
something like this but again because it
happened before any current staff we're
not entirely positive where that number
came from
in 2014 there was an update to the
budget that moved the 400,000 out to
2019 and put 200,000 in 2018 in 2015
again there was another update that
moved the budget forward for 400,000 in
2016 and 200,000 and 2017 this is
currently where we stand budgetary wise
we have five hundred and seventy eight
thousand dollars of the six hundred
thousand dollar budget still remaining
in our Tim noted budget we've currently
used that other twenty two thousand to
fund the feasibility study in the fall
of 2016 we received the feasibility
study back to us with some alternate
options in which we took that
information back to the Rosedale
development Association to discuss these
with them well that in that meeting took
place yeah sorry
jumping ahead of myself in May of 2017
after our initial meeting with RDA we
had our consultant actually look at a
couple different design options breaking
this down into several smaller segments
that would make things more feasible and
allow us to really impact the community
and the best way possible that was done
in May of 2017 at this point we then
discussed options and looked at funding
for these options in coordination with
some of our safe routes to school grants
that we've been very successful in
applying for with the mid-america
Regional Council in February of this
year we selected option a because it
provided some of the major arterial
routes through this neighborhood locust
as the east-west route and
Knight Terrace as the north-south route
in April it was decided that given the
amount of funding that was available for
the safe routes to school program
through the mid-america Regional Council
it wouldn't benefit us to apply for that
at this time just because the amount of
funding that would be available wouldn't
really help us get much accomplished it
would still put a very large burden on
the population and on the ug that kind
of brings us to where we currently are
so so describe the district a little
more I already kind of gave you some of
the street boundaries but to give you a
little bit more of the details of it the
proposed district encompasses 292
parcels on the original signatures that
were returned 142 of them or 142 parcels
were signed the total acreage of this
area is about 77 acres so you're looking
at an average plot size or partial size
of about a quarter of an acre
the average property value is about a
hundred and one thousand dollars a year
and the average taxable value is about
eighteen hundred dollars a year so those
are the numbers that we look at when
we're looking at you know what what
could potentially be feasible for
economic purposes the petition for this
district actually asked for sidewalks
urban gutter and storm drainage so as we
evaluated this program we made sure to
include all three of those elements the
total project estimate for this project
is almost ten million dollars nine point
nine eight million dollars that number
seems rather large for a sidewalk
benefit district but keep in mind that
it does include a lot of storm drainage
and the total Lane miles in this
district is about four point one miles
that's on the same scale as Leavenworth
Road or Merriam Lane the amount of area
that we did do work on so it's a very
large geographic area so there's a lot
of work that's going to go into this
there is on top of that ten million
dollars there is an additional two and a
half million that the ug would be
responsible for that is not
participating in
our policy it says that the unified
government will pay for design and
inspection of the construction so this
is something we could not recoup any
money for as I said before the total
number of parcels affected in this
district would be 292 so if you divided
that cost evenly amongst the parcels
you'd come up with an average you come
up with twenty seven thousand seven
hundred sixty one dollars per parcel
that would be if somebody wanted to pay
that total that way they wouldn't have
to pay it out over the 15 years or 20
years whatever we decide on that would
be what they'd have to pay at that time
if they wanted to break it out over the
15 or 20 years you're looking at about
$2,600 annually which does include our
interest fees and our financing fees in
addition to what they are currently
paying on their property taxes the map
you see on the screen is highlighted in
different colors as constructability
options or constructability
possibilities the red areas of course
are more difficult to construct green or
easier yellows a mid-range so we wanted
to tell you so all that was done prior
to the fall of 2017 once we got the
study back and realized some of this
information we started looking at it and
these are the activities that we've done
recently so we met with the RDA in
January of 2017 they agreed with us that
that dollar value just doesn't seem
something that could be really supported
by the community so that's when we broke
this into the four possible options that
we'll talk to you about at a different
meeting to try and make things easy
you're not easier but something more
affordable and something that can still
benefit the area because we do see the
need and the want in this area to get
something done it's just finding that
right piece we had to tempt note the two
or the six hundred thousand dollars that
was in the budget so that we did in 2017
and as I mentioned earlier we took some
alternate designs one of them has become
Safe Routes Phase II that actually bids
out in September of this year that's
really one to one and a half blocks of
sidewalk along 10th Street going from
Oliver to Locust
right now that is estimated to come in
probably about 1.2 million dollars
we took the option a that was taken from
our feasibility study and looked at
doing Safe Routes phase G as stated up
here but ultimately it was decided to
not apply for that just because of the
total price tag that that was going to
be that was gonna be somewhere in the
neighborhood of 3.4 so we had to and we
decided to pull that since the five
hundred thousand in federal money wasn't
really gonna help us all that much we
had a follow-up meeting in April of this
year with RDA to let them know that this
is where we're currently at so this is
where we are currently we haven't made
any more advances at this time because
we're needing to get some direction
about how we want to move forward the
next couple things we we plan on doing
is we're going to go back to the
neighborhood itself not just RTA and
re-engage everybody and say these are
the potential options with some
potential dollar values is this still
something you're looking and okay with
pursuing if the overwhelming response is
yes we'll bring it back to you as the
boat as the commission for your decision
on the potential scope to choose what
project size we want to do the potential
funding level that you're willing to
allocate to this project and the
possible percentage of cost shared but
that'll be at a later meeting after we
get that approval from you guys or
decision from you guys well then go back
to the district champions let them know
of that and if the decision on the
councilor and the Commission's part is
to move forward they will then begin the
process of circulating for that in that
formal signature and at that time that's
whenever we'll be getting that
information back verify and then come
back to you for and we'll get it put in
the budget
Samara that's the rundown on what's
happened so far on this project can't
say that or clearly some delays along
the way some time frames we did try to
stay in communication with the group
that put it in but somewhere between
last year and this year when you know we
allocated the money for this project
which brandon noted was in play we spent
$22,000 on some of the preliminary
design work to get some numbers in hand
I think it's the daunting numbers of
knowing that this benefit district if we
approved it at a 50/50 would double the
taxes on the residents in the area is
what made everybody looking at it say
what are some other options we can come
to and consider for this area to be more
practical to go back into play and and
and I think the staff there were in the
line level working on this if that
caused it to delay then I guess there
were at fault for doing that but that is
how they were trying to advance it and
figure out ways that were practical to
implement so at this point there is
still five hundred seventy eight
thousand dollars in design money and
temp notes that's waiting to work on
this it'll probably take more than that
to do the design of this now if they've
got into it to realize the order of
magnitude though I'm not concerned about
putting that money in clay until we got
enough to work with until we see that
the residents are ready to move forward
with this kind of a magnitude tax manner
of a district or if we find a different
option to work with what mr. mayor I
have a question or a comment sure
Commissioner thank you so I apologize
everyone I have a broken car otherwise I
wouldn't be there right now this issue
as you know is very important to me and
I'm not sure if it was bred or who was
it that gave the presentation I don't
have a television in front of me but I
just want to say that how is all of
these community meetings and all of this
neighborhood stuff gone on and not one
time as the Commissioner for the
districts been updated our brief on this
project that's very concerning to me and
I have a great deal of respect for the
work that neighborhood groups do
RDA is not the commissioner and not the
elected official for Rosedale and I
understand they were involved in this
project but it was I myself who was out
there getting signatures on the petition
I myself who organized residents at
neighborhood to help with those
petitions and art RDA was simply a
participant in that process and frankly
no one neighborhood group decides what's
going to happen in a particular area or
a district I am so frustrated with what
appears to have been over the years this
incredible power and control that one
neighborhood organization has over an
entire neighborhood I've walked that
neighborhood many times and I can tell
you many times I've knocked on doors and
people have never even heard of RDA or
Rosedale Development Association so
moving forward as the Commissioner
that's elected that puts their name on a
ballot and it talks to people and has to
go door to door to be elected I'd like
to be involved and updated on every
project that goes on in my district
especially when you're talking about a
10 million dollar benefit district we're
not talking about a stop sign so
hopefully in the future when things go
on in Rosedale that staff from now on
will come to me as a commissioner and
not to the Rosedale Development
Association I'd really appreciate that
it's understood commissioner and noted
that as we went through the steps that
it appeared that communication with you
seem to be in void as we went back
through the record of what was going on
there so we will keep you in touch with
this and as you can see it's a major
project so figuring out what direction
we go from this point will be important
yes Commissioner Markley thank you I'm
just curious and the answer may just be
that we drop the ball and if that's the
answer fine but what happened between
2013 and 2016 look like we put money in
the budget but we did nothing else for
three years and that seems to be where
the problem occurred right because then
it got us all out of time line with the
petition like I said if the answers just
we drop the ball fine but I was curious
if I was missing something in that time
line I would say that what happened
during that time period was a change in
Public Works leadership when not a lot
of information was known to current
staff about this project in particular
so that would be that change over
whenever our former county engineer left
a few of us were going through project
files that he had and giving them up
amongst remaining staff and that's when
in 2016 when this is reinitiated we
dropped the ball and then any other
thing that I have to say and this is up
to Commissioner Maria in the
neighborhood when it when it gets to
that point because it looks like we have
a few steps before that but I we had
this discussion at the last meeting
about having to go get signatures again
and I agree that it's gonna be very
difficult to get people to to get those
people to walk door-to-door again
when we made and walked order over last
time and then we didn't do anything for
three years so I would still be in favor
of the situation where this board in
statestat district once we're sure
there's a majority in favor based on our
group meetings or some other system that
makes it easier for residents to through
that process
yeah I might clarify too that probably a
little misunderstanding from what had
happened that previous time so the door
to door before was the informal petition
so I mean just for that point so that
was Annette and our policy does require
that 50% be turned in for the district
you know and going back through those
numbers now
we were far less than that that was
actually turned in for this but we
accepted it started working it so that's
that feedback was not offered out at
that time so the big step is that formal
petition when you're showing all the
people in the district this is the
actual cost because the first time
around is more of it's the here's the
type of project we would like to do
would you be interested in that versus
coming back to them and saying here's
the project we'd like to do in the area
and would you be willing to pay from
1300 to $2,700 a month or a year in
additional property taxes so that's a
that's a whole different level of
petition to go around and that that step
has not been done for this district
mr. Townsend yes thank you Mary this is
just a general question about these
districts since there would be another
process for a petition of formal do you
still need what fifty percent and what
happens
in the event that well what happens for
those citizens in the district who were
not in agreement will they be taxed they
are taxed okay well ultimately with the
benefit district process yeah it
requires it to be fifty a majority 51%
come in to sign it to come forward but
then it does have to come before you as
a governing body so if you had you know
one hundred people come to the room and
forty nine of them were saying we don't
want that additional tax you're the ones
that would ultimately make the decision
whether you would go forward with it or
not it doesn't I don't think there's
anything that makes it automatic just
because the petitioners that just allows
the process to continue moving forward
so that would be one of those
considerations to make if it were that
close but they would be paying the tax
because we're in this within the
confines of the district your proof that
you approve the district everybody in a
pace thank you very much okay the next
item on the agenda is our clerical
corrections to the budget document which
is we don't really have a formal
presentation to run through you received
an attachment there was a hard copy also
or electric copy that was separate these
are not amendments to the document these
are just ones as we've gone through the
past several weeks and the 650 pages in
the document determined there is some
things missing the most notable one was
the one we went through and we were
going through debt or we left a couple
zeros off at the end so but there as I
said these are not any of the other
changes or just clerical yeah that's a
big one that's why pointed that out but
the other ones are not policy changes or
we're adding to it it's just cleaning it
up am I missing anything with that
regi okay alright now let's get to the
fun part of the seedlings not that the
other part hadn't been fun but I get
somebody hit the clicker for me
so the potential yellow sheet or
reconciliation items these are the items
that we're going to talk about and we
have a little bit more detail and kind
of broke them down by different
categories so we have the conviction
Integrity Unit
there's Schlitterbahn case the Smid the
abatement team that's out there
increases 2nb arse building security
juvenile Center funding increase k7 and
parallel those are the ones that are
more in the dollars and cents changes
that are there then we have some policy
direction in areas of the right away
mowing and then where we're going with
future discussion on the Western fire
station reporting to standing committees
employees state of statewide economic
overview our strategic planning around
economic development planning areas and
livable neighborhoods staffing so that's
what we've captured we're going to go
into each one of these here in a little
bit and it's my goal from this point
that I make sure I have the right
direction from you all as to what we
need to address from a financial
perspective of what we're going to work
with future next slide so I think you
gave us direction the other night on the
Kin DA's conviction Integrity Unit he
came in and he asked for some additional
staffing the staffing request it was
about a hundred fifty five thousand
dollars worth and he's seventy five
hundred dollars worth of equipment so
what we did was he built the budget for
this started in the fourth quarter of
2018 and buy the equipment this year and
then built in the full amount for the
staffing in 2019 and then we'd be
looking at the other one is contact with
the AG regarding what we thought the
cost of the case would be the DA did
that so we think it's at $350,000 for
both the cases we have in there so that
impacts both where we're at on the 2018
and
90 am i clear and moving forward with
this direction
yes Commissioner banner I think you can
see that we have support for the item
but we have a very late letter received
today with concerns from our two main
law enforcement partners about how to
protect the entire process so I think
while we agree we need to fund this I
think we need to pay good attention to
what our police chief and sheriff bring
forward as potential concerns as we
develop this unit and I would just ask
us to be diligent in hearing their
concerns and if there are things we can
build into this unit working with the DA
that that helps satisfy their side of
this equation but they this email came
today at 5:30 to all of us so we may
want to have a look at that and see what
concerns they're bringing forward but
I've glanced at it
sure okay the karenann is sending them I
get to you I just I just want us to be
aware as we move forward I think we
understand what the DA was bringing us
and I think we agree with that
but we need to also be aware of what our
two chief law enforcement officers in
this county are saying so that's all I'm
asking for I still support it I just
want awareness that we've got to work
with our police and sheriff so if we
were to approve this for the budget and
we were to find that the the concerns
outlined in the letter were
substantiated that would cause us to not
be able to implement it that money would
simply
be hanging out there I don't think
that's what the letter is saying and I
would hope that we all take a minute to
at least but I don't think they are
saying don't fund this just to be clear
but but I think what the mayor is saying
is that if we would read that letter
discuss those concerns and decide at
some future point that we wanted to
change the funding then that would
simply be an item that would not receive
funding and that funding would fall
either to the bottom line or to another
purpose in the budget correct correct
I'd be okay with them and this was a
letter to the Attorney General of the
state of Kansas and so we're looking for
an opinion which could then be it could
be decisive yes Commissioner Kane well I
got it and for that amount of money and
with the concern from the other folks I
think we do need to take a serious look
at it you know normally we say what are
the surrounding municipalities doing an
event like this so yes I think that at
first blush it looks great but I would
like to see what the opinion comes back
yes Commissioner markley I'm just gonna
say can we obviously we're kind of on a
tight schedule with the budget so can we
put it in the budget and then require to
come before a Standing Committee for
further discussion based on this last
minute information so we can make sure
we know what's going on in you can
though what we would need to do because
the district attorney is an elected
official so when we approve his budget
it is his budget to utilize I would say
that we would need to put it into the
county budget but were you and hold it
in a separate fund are not fun to count
so it would not be part of that budget
until such time that you authorize a
revision to transfer it over so if you
wanted to have that kind of control of
it because if we were to move forward as
is up here and we approve it September 1
that money goes into his budget and he
would have his he would have the
correction or he has his authority to
spend that money how he deems
appropriate
I think if we would hold that in
abeyance or in reserve somehow I think
that's the appropriate way to go with it
I think you have your direction on this
okay so we move forward with it but
we're putting it into a special account
outside of the DA's office and tell such
time you give us the go-ahead to move it
into it thank you
next slide please Dupree just texted me
and said he could come over now but well
it would still depend upon what we'd
hear from the Attorney General I think
just Johnny what he takes me relaying a
message telling that no we've already
decided to put into a separate account
which will be decided after we receive
full opinions from the Attorney General
okay the next items are under
consideration I would say because there
were some attention about these but we
did not have any consensus from the
governing body we're at so I'm gonna
start with the Smid one thing I did find
probably with that that it I just wanted
to show you at least the numbers behind
that Reggie if you'll hit the next slide
it currently I thought it would be worth
this just showing so that if you look in
the first column you see it's the 2018
mil rate for the Smid district was
twelve point six three five then you all
set a maximum mil rate for the Smith
District at 12 they requested what's in
the third column of eleven point O two
six
okay so house is kind of come down so in
the if we were to adopt it at last
year's mill are this year's mill rate
2018 it would generate two hundred
thirty nine thousand you did at the
twelve it would be 227 if you did it at
what they've requested its 208 unify
governments currently proposed but
$100,000 into their budget they received
other funding from sources such as the
BPU and or in the K you Strawberry Hill
campus
combined equal around forty three five
there might be something else in there
so there's the total revenues you see in
each of these scenarios and then they
have their proposed budget that they put
out at three sixty four one hundred so
the request is to move the to use the
third column over at the lower mill rate
lowering it by one and a half mil from
last year and have the unified
government pay additional $25,000 so as
you're considering this I thought you
should at least see this perspective so
mr. mayor a question about this sure did
you just say that the dam songster
holders group just get an additional
thousand dollar grant from the unified
government every year hundred thousand
we give a we are not part of the Smid we
own property within the Smid district so
years ago when that came about we told
them we were not going to just be given
a we're not gonna pay into it from that
perspective but we will pay a hundred
thousand dollars and that's that number
has changed over the years too but it's
at a hundred thousand dollars now and
that's in lieu of what you make it sound
like it's in lieu of something it's in
lieu of paying property tax because as a
property owner within the Smid we no
doubt get some benefit from what goes on
in that district from the cleaning that
they do all around the downtown area the
added security that they do so and it
the same decision the BPU made and the
same decision that ku's making coming
down here since they are non taxable
entities they would not have to pay into
it but they make a payment in lieu of
that tax okay and did they get any other
additional money besides was part of the
SMED
every do you know do they get any other
revenue sources I mean they're I don't
that are substantial they may get a few
thousand from something but I don't know
that there's that this is the majority
of the revenue that they receive so
these are the majority it's the property
taxes the majority of the revenue that
they make okay and I have an I apologize
I haven't followed this very closely but
I'm some just curious so I'm sorry if
you have to repeat so this is the way
the schmidt is set up is that they get a
percentage of the property tax collected
in this particular area or they put an
additional tax on the businesses in that
area and they get that they put an
additional tax on themselves and they
get all apparently so it's over and
above what all the other tax rates are
set by every taxing entity so the the
property owners in this area pay this
year and they're paying twelve point six
mils more than somebody that sits right
outside of that meant that's mid and and
they have to get a petition for that
right so it has to be over 50% of the
people agreed to pay that correct yes it
was a very long process that they've
gone through to get all that set up okay
that's all I have thank you very much
any other comments directions so the
request is that the unified government
add $25,000 to our share well certainly
I do believe that as property owners in
the district we do get a benefit for the
money that we invest this hundred
twenty-five would end up being less than
we originally committed to when the
district was formed but certainly it
would be higher than what we've been
paying historically if commissioners are
not in favor of an additional $25,000
investment then I would wonder could we
set the mill at eleven point five one
point four point one one lower than it
was last year
which would be roughly a way to meet in
the middle why still lowering the mill
by over well if I say a point but by
over
full 10 from where it was last year and
yet keeping our cash investment low I
would favor $125,000 to this made for
the benefit that we receive I think I
would agree with that again they've been
we had committed to funding them at
$150,000 over many years we're not able
to do that
it simply asked over the past couple of
years that we restore what we originally
committed to and this line gets us
really halfway to that five six
so I'm gonna mr. mayor of one more
question go for it
I'm sorry I'm - keep jumping in but I'm
just curious about this also so what is
the total amount of money annually
collected from this minute in this area
the Smid generates two hundred and
thirty nine thousand four hundred and
two dollars for 2018 and if we put in a
hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars
we'll be paying more than 50% of that
correct well yeah I'm very good
Commissioner yeah that's our hundred
thousand is over and above so what I
gave you that quote is what the property
owners that pay into the Smid pay the
239 so we'd pay another hundred our
hundred thousand is on top of that plus
the money from the BPU and kayuu is on
top of that as well so the total
generated is three hundred and eighty
two thousand nine oh two so we're about
so would it be no approximately one so
would it be okay so would it be fair to
say out of all of the money that the
schmid generate itself the unified
government is matching that by fifty
percent thirty not the total amount no
that's your correct ID five percent no
it's a 40 plus forty two hundred eighty
thousand unified government piece of
this is about one-third of the total
revenues that in the bank of the in the
ledger of the Smid okay so I hear what
you're saying the the total not
generated though from the people that
submitted to sell not the government
okay you said with $239,000 crest the
non-governmental entities yes that's
right
so in addition to that $239,000
what they're bringing to the table is
$239,000
so the government is going to put in
another hundred and twenty five thousand
then we're giving them 50 cents on the
dollar for every dollar they raise we're
giving them fifty cents well they also
have there's forty three thousand
dollars there from other government
entities - okay so if you add those
together we're probably pretty close to
matching them almost dollars a dollar if
you count all the government and to be
some of the other includes
non-government entities buildings that
are not on the tax roll that are making
a contribution to the smooth in lieu of
being on the tax roll in paying taxes
okay well let's just make it really easy
then because it's too complicated I'll
go back to what I originally said if we
just talk about our portion the unified
government person that you're asking for
tonight $125,000 urine essence giving
Schmidt this med who's bringing a
substantial amount of money to the table
almost 50 cents for every dollar that
they bring to the table and their
primary function is to provide security
and beautification in their geographic
area correct
don't make it complicated that's fine
with me and by the way I am fine with
that I just want to be clear so that's
what's happening mr. mctierney yeah I
think it ends up being instead of 50
cents it ends up being about 34 cents if
we really want to do the math on it but
but you are correct that that is our
contribution again I support it based on
our significant property holdings in
inside their service area and the
benefit they bring to us and our
property holdings in that area but if it
is the will of the Commission that we
stay at a hundred then I would propose
that we consider the mill of 11.5 yeah
Brian I'm not are not contrasting that I
just want you to be very clear I'm not
suggesting that I just I just want to be
very clear but if it's if they're asking
for a hundred and twenty five thousand
dollars if you double that that's two
hundred fifty thousand dollars and what
they were bringing to the table is two
hundred and thirty nine thousand dollars
so I was saying it's approximately 50%
we're paying them fifty cents on every
dollar they bring to the table I think
that's great and just so we know what
we're getting in return for that which
is security and beautification and
cleanup that's great
I'm good with 125 I just want to make
sure that I understood that and if I'm
wrong correct me if I'm not I'm good
with 125 I'm good with it as well I
support it as well mr. Philbrook yes
they do a little bit more than that
they're very pro-business and they do
encourage business in that area and work
with downtown shareholders but yeah I'm
for the hundred and twenty five
understanding that we're gonna decrease
the mill rate to eleven point O to six
so I'm for the suggested last column for
this year for 2019 any other comments or
questions
Commissioner Townsend Inc mr. Burroughs
just for clarity
what was the symmetry
recall from me what was the reason they
were asking for the addition funds I
don't know that I ever had that direct I
bet I believe it was so they could lower
their mill rate a little bit Oh to to
their shareholders okay thank you
commissioners thank you
the others in the 43 5 does that we hear
correctly that that includes the
partnership from the University of
Kansas facility also we know for how
long how many years um I I don't know
that they just gave me an amount for
them for next year I got a sense that
it's an ongoing commitment that in lieu
of the fact that they're not paying
taxes because they are not-for-profit
they would a state entity that they are
committed to doing what they can to help
the downtown area and it includes
bringing resources to downtown
shareholders yeah
I received an agreement from them but I
don't remember offhand how many years
it's for but the mayor's right there
okay I think you have direction go back
to the previous slide please so the
question was asked about our abatements
and our ability to continue to do the
abatements at the 14-day timeframe which
we were not doing and I believe
Commissioner mckernon was very clear
Ness in the question what would it take
for you to be getting it back to that
level this is classified as a quick
response to trash team the quick
response trash team is currently what we
use to go out and do abatement so they
mow they just don't do trash they stop
on a lot they clear it they pick up the
trash off of it they mow it sometimes
they'll spend most of the part of a day
going through and trying to clear a lot
like that so in order to get closer to
the 14-day abatement period versus where
we're backlog to today we feel like that
would require the addition of another
team these are three member teams they
use a dump truck and a few mowers and
other such equipment that's the $180,000
part so to do this you see the
combination of a number that's $320,000
there are $30,000
that's bad 340 thousand almost 350 so
but the 180 portion is a one-time then
the staff would be the ongoing and if we
were to do this starting next year that
would be the cost commissioner McKiernan
thank you I did ask what would it take
because I've noticed at least a couple
of occasions where we haven't been
meeting what we had said we were gonna
meet which was a 14-day abatement and
seeing that price tag I think I am
perfectly fine having now recognized
what it would cost to get to our stated
14-day abatement if we didn't fund this
but instead we're very clear about what
our procedure and what our expectations
are going to be going forward because I
thought we were operating under the
14-day abatement and evidently we
haven't been and it's been in part due
to funding but I would ask
an additional thing and that would be if
we choose and that is a large dollar
amount for a an abatement season that is
winding down and if we choose not to
fund this for the entirety of 2019 I
would ask that we seriously and
intentionally build this into the
amended 19 so that the halfway point of
2019 if we are not keeping up as we
appear not to be doing this year that
we've intentionally built in a backstop
for the second half of 2019 so I'm okay
now that we've identified what it's
going to take I think we should
communicate it's not going to be a
14-day abatement and I think we should
intentionally build this into the
amended 19 so that we can pick it up at
14 days when we get to the middle of
2019 yes mr. Townsend you're agreeing
maybe four to six weeks is that what
that means is that correct I'm just
trying to make right now Melissa Dina
it's it's really it's dependent so the
last count we had we were running it
around 14 days from May June July
so the sometimes it depends on when when
things get catalogued in so and you got
that time from when it got into the
system versus time from which it was
noticed
okay so we're running around there but
we have done 988 statements so far this
year so that's I think that it's the
sheer volume the three-person team
worked an average of 240 hours of
overtime from October to April and 17
and an 18 to keep up with demands
additional Parks crews have been working
overtime as needed so but you're not
this isn't kind of a comprehensive way
of looking at this so we could bring
back more information to kind of show
you Melissa I wonder if so do we expect
that the numbers freeze
for us to remediate will be ratcheting
down over time or is this a constant
supply that is going to require the
equipment and the staffing on an ongoing
basis in the time that most of us will
be here and probably beyond it will be
constant it's not going to turn
overnight okay and I've I've got plenty
more years ahead of me so commissioner
McKiernan thank you I think in a couple
of the cases that I brought forward I
think that once we get to abatement it
actually is moving reasonably quickly
that I think there are some other
process improvements we could make
internally that would cut the total time
from submission to completion down even
if the abatement still ends up at a 14
to 28 day period but I really am adamant
that when we start building next year's
budget that these real numbers this
accurate assessment of what it's going
to take be included from the very
beginning of building next year's budget
so we we don't confront it like we do
this at the 11th hour mr. mark Lee I
agree and next time we have a soar
update maybe we could have some of the
additional data to help us move forward
just for clarity yes we are we paid how
much overtime I'm sorry last year which
is our last fiscal year that's closed it
was an average of 240 hours of overtime
or that crew but understand that we've
also been pulling another park staff to
help out when they start getting further
behind so do we know what that dollar
amount is not in the information I have
before me okay thanks you could bring
that forward with that other implement
mr. Tobin if I might mayor and
commissioners administrator a couple of
notes going forward here jack has had a
hard time in parks keeping up on the
part-time people and bringing them on
and just like Melissa said a few minutes
ago
there this is part of a much bigger
picture but understand for the future as
commissioner MacKinnon said a few
minutes ago if you tried
right now if you approve this by the
time you got the staff on board and the
equipment purchased it wouldn't have an
impact until 2019 so if you waited to do
that in a revised 2019 your impact is
gonna be six months later probably just
a note commissioner Kane well I
certainly think we need to add some cash
to cut in the grass and I would
elaborate but we don't have all night
long I have to agree with your
commissioner thank you yes mr. burrows
so you're looking at a six month time
frame from the remainder of this year
about five months remaining for the year
so if you divide that number in half and
then take five months from that I should
give us our target number and we should
put into the budget for this year
building up for nineteen be ready for 19
a that funded fully in 19
no I I would agree this would be
targeting for this is targeted for 19
you see the Nate's out there so and we
would we could modify that we certainly
wouldn't need to do the full year on
staffing you know from that point
forward it would be an ongoing number
but yes so but we could purchase the
equipment this year
and have it ready to go if we needed to
yeah you could if you approved the
funding yes
would that be the preference moving
forward too so that we don't find
ourselves behind the eight-ball in 2019
for six months again commissioner that
would you know that's up to the will the
Commission here as to what you want to
do if you want to hit your 14 day
schedule again then this was what was
put forward you know our if we funded
this for next year we want to have
everything on hand ready to roll by
March April somewhere in that time frame
so most likely we can make that happen
beginning the year though it could be
advantageous to get things done I don't
know what the dumptruck ordering date is
off the top my head what that needs to
happen in the fall the previous year or
not but the dump truck lead time depends
again upon size also it depends upon the
mowers that they would want to bring in
for this smaller the mowers if that was
the case those are much readily
available a dump truck can take up to a
year depending upon how big you go
we got them we'd figure out how to get a
truck out there in the field for a while
between our inventory that we have would
just need to replace it in time how are
we doing on this year are we doing all
right
budget wise this year fighting
no this is not so much an issue of the
mowing budget I think it's more of an
issue of this particular group that does
a very niche type of work which is
abatements
so there's mowing money these folks do
mow but there were they're responding to
you know violators then we have our
mowing budget that's for Liam Bank which
is different and then we have right away
mowing and other different types of
mowing parks mowing so on and so forth
so it's not a mowing issue as much as it
is it's a staff to do the abatement type
of work so I think that's what the
request is coming from so it's picking
up the trash debris loading it up yep
Commissioner McKinnon and I think that's
where a lot of our frustration comes
from and you said it yourself mayor that
it is disheartening that we have so much
picking up after to do in terms of both
trash and grass and weeds and I would
hope that we could change that but
Melissa's assessment is that it's gonna
be the status quo for a while so - have
we identified a source of offset for
this if we were to add it to the 19 if
you had one I would welcome any kind of
recommendations or thoughts you have for
that I don't have anything off the top
of my head that I'm working on this
would be in the city general fund mayor
question would this be part Oh
mr. rock of the work you would do um
immediately following this session is go
try to find take from here put here yes
bring it back if we say this is a
priority for us yes
mr. filbert I know I mean I I've heard
the fact that yes we have all these
different little pigeon holes that were
claiming for money and people's time
that if we rob Peter to pay Paul it's
still gonna cost us so we still have to
have the people out there working we
can't divide them in half and send them
out so either they're working on
cleaning up areas that that need to be
abated or they're mowing they can't do
both at the same time so that's why I'm
more impossible a skew to find the money
I don't know where you're gonna make it
from I don't have a tree but you're
pretty miraculous
well where it's clear that I should
build this in or not yeah I it doesn't
mr. Kane I don't say we build it in but
we should add some monies to it maybe
not this much but something to get us
further than we've been this year you
know obviously if we run into overtime
issues maybe hire another person but I
don't think we can do it with the money
we have in there right now so I need I
think we need to boost it up something I
would agree with that I don't know if
there would be any in-between solution
to this that you know I wouldn't want to
go private contracting but if if that
would abate temporarily certain things
maybe but we're already paying overtime
Commissioner McKiernan
and I just want to clarify with
Commissioner Kane so I want to clarify
it sounds like what you're talking about
is just additional money for my mowing
not necessarily the addition of this
quick-response trash team the abatement
team would that be correct
okay so so I think we're talking two
related but separate things here where
as opposed to the quick-response trash
team just an additional money devoted to
our standard mowing program is what
you're suggesting okay mr. mayor I have
a comment or a question also go ahead
mayor's you bring up a good point do we
is there something that exists where for
emergency abatements and stuff like that
that goes on that temporarily we can
subcontract that out it seems like
something that would really greatly
benefit small businesses in Wyandotte
County there are a number of small
companies that are locally owned and
operated in
County that do grass mowing and trash
removal and things like that that might
be temporarily at least faster and also
create some opportunity for some smaller
contractors in Wyandotte County so is it
possible to if we're not really willing
to commit this level of funding going
forward that we would at least commit to
looking at other possible solutions to
reducing the backlog yeah I think you
know we can look at the private
contractors and I would welcome if
Jeremy or Mike or you either what do you
want to comment on that the I know
previously when we bet bid these
difficult Lots we don't get people that
are that excited they like to mow the
stuff they can get in and mow and when
it comes to I mean as I said will drop
on a lot and there happen to so bid a
lot price to us and the variation is you
might be able to clean a lot in 30
minutes I think Jeremy told me verses
six to seven hours so there's no
uniformity at all in trying to price
structure these so then that requires us
to be kind of on site with them so that
takes another supervisor of position as
you go out to them so it's a these are
you've seen them there are a lot of odd
things through the community so when you
come to them you know and then you know
it's pricing so it's a it's an awkward
one we haven't had a lot of good luck
with contractors not to say that we
couldn't find somebody that could work
with as well it's just been a difficult
run or not if you have any additional
comments that Jeremy maybe I'm missing
something no you are correct the problem
with contractors is when we go in and do
an abatement it's on private property so
we're going on to someone's property and
when you involve contractors I don't
know if Ken can elaborate on that but I
know there are some legalities with that
issue well then why don't we have
comment
here then why Jeremy did we not use our
guys for the private property stuff and
use the contractor for the public stuff
all of the abatements that we do are on
private property we're basically in
focus I'm sorry so I was also speaking
to Mike and and Brian's comments about
mowing so I won't confuse them I'll
stick with abatement so why are we using
some learnt using our internal existing
crews for those emergency abatement and
then farming out the stuff that they're
doing to a subcontractor temporarily
until we get our hands around that since
our guys are from here and they know our
community and they know our
neighborhoods
why wouldn't we use them for that that's
exactly what we're doing we if we have
an emergency abatement we'll pull our
three guys that we have on that crew and
we'll send them to that do that
abatement then at the end of the day
once we're done with our parks and with
our medians and whatnot those guys will
come in and fill in the back of where
those guys pick up where where they are
to help them out so that that makes it a
shorter day right but our guys what you
were just saying is we're paying a lot
of overtime so what I'm saying well we
have so many guys and we can't put them
on everything and we can't work them
well we could I guess but we probably
Cindy working 12 hour 10 hour days and
unless they want that I guess but from a
cost efficiency perspective why would we
be subcontracting the easier stuff and
just moving things around so our guys
are doing the more the stuff that will
more comfortable doing in-house mr.
Moore our ordinance clearly contemplates
so once we get into the process the
abatement process that we do ourselves
or have an authorized agent or do
have so it kind of plays having
contractors that they're doing at work
the only requirement that's done in a
reasonable manner thank you
so they could consensus of the
Commission is there a strong drive to
places on the budget hearing none move
on okay the next one was a brought up
the discussion about the increase to the
MBRs I we had some discussion about it
and then we left it at that point so I
don't know that I have anything else to
bring to the table but I asked
Commissioner Bynum to speak to this sure
um while I maintain my position of
believing that returning the existing in
beers to their funded level of a decade
ago is something I support
I am also fine with having a further
conversation to look at MBRs across the
board I'm really fine with that
you know it's $20,000 so for me
returning them to their funding level of
a decade ago seems easy but I'm actually
fine with delaying that and having a
more a deeper conversation around the
work that they do in general is
absolutely fine with me thank you so
what I understand is that you're not
asking to forward this is there anyone
else on the commission would like to
forward this funding at this point no I
don't want afford it but I do want to
make sure we have that conversation
absolutely thank you
next up mr. Bach all right the next item
is the one that we had a sheriff ash and
chief Ziegler here talked about a few
things going on from building security
and they noted they had identified a
couple hundred thousand dollars which
they thought would probably go in
addition to what we have in the budget
today of about 150 thousand some of
those modifications
Asians are not 100% as to what we'll be
doing for sure though they've done some
preliminary programming into it and
believe this would cover the cost to
make it happen so it was just kind of an
open additional two hundred thousand
dollars looking to add into our budget
I'm okay with it yeah I think it's
absolutely necessary
Commissioner McKenna and when I saw this
particular slide it's one of the reasons
that I said you know we can hold off on
the quick response trash team because
this is a slightly less but somewhat
equivalent amount of money and I think
it is probably more urgent for our
consideration my opinion I agree but I
was just curious $150,000 is that in the
twenty nineteen or the twenty eighteen
amended
so we've already budgeted I believe we
have money and in both years okay so
there seems very strong consensus for
this thank you
next slide please okay so those were the
main ones from a financial change that
were right at hand these are ones that
kind of titik take us from a different
perspective
they are financial and consideration
though they fall out of the general
funds into the area of debt so the first
direction was on our juvenile center we
had a twenty four point eight million
dollar project I brought to you that
what we projected to probably need an
additional 2.7 million dollars to do the
project as we were contemplating to do
it because of the inflationary mostly
inflationary aspects of what was
changing in the cost of operations
Commission asked me to go back and
figure out a couple different options on
this so the first was how do I get the
scope back down to twenty four point
eight million dollars Jeff and his team
went to work on this they came back so
we would look at the third-floor court
room area where we had built that into
it so we have all the programming that
would be in place to do the juveniles
from the services they have to the
detention areas and then where we'd
build the courtrooms on the third floor
we would just leave them in a shell type
finish and we believe that's a
difference that would save us about that
2.7 Jefferson correct that's correct so
that's an option to reduce the amount of
money and keep us within the original
budget a couple of other options we came
up with and now we've already issued the
PBC or through the public building
commission so these bonds are issued or
in place but if we needed to spend more
money and we elected to do the
additional finish work one option is to
go to the parking lot by Memorial Hall
and as that Memorial Hall is largely
serving the well at 50% for the project
for employees but the other for serving
Memorial Hall we believe it's eligible
to use transient guests tax dollars so
we could spend $450,000 of cash from
that project area also when Kathleen
went through the numbers the other night
and showed you the amount of money we
had in debt reserves on the county side
we think we could just cash we have
enough money that we could cash into
that a million dollars from that account
so essentially that's about a million
and a half dollars if we said do the
twenty seven and a half million dollar
project I could fund that by this
million and a half and then just
increase the debt by the balance or hope
that the bids come in lower and not
quite get all the way up to that full
amount so I've tried to throw some
options at you as far as you want me to
stay at twenty four point eight million
will do it and then there's about a
million and a half we could do an
additional add-ons depending on where
the bids come and you go from there
makes remarks sense
major Martling I like the option that
option B you've come up with where we
can have that higher budget if needed
but I guess I would say I would be okay
with authorizing that higher budget I
would still like to see if we can bring
that number down and although I
appreciate that the courtroom finish is
a way to take that whole 2.7 million
often one kick I'm guessing there are
other smaller things that we could take
away that would wheedle away a little
pieces of that
and I would still be in favor of doing
that to keep that number lower while
having the option for the higher amount
part of the reason I say that is because
we don't know how the bids are gonna
come in and so having it authorized is
at least the money's out there but I
still think there are ways we could save
less than 2.7 million but still save
some money and get our third program
personally Commissioner McKiernan I
would agree with that I mean I'm the one
who's had the concern about the creep in
the project scope and to be able to
increase from 25 24 point 8 to
effectively 25 to 26 Rather's about a
million dollars of additional debt that
doesn't that does not necessarily need
to be ultimately funded and used
depending on how the project comes in
so I exactly I would be comfortable with
the second option
Commissioner Johnson like options I
think that if we had been led to believe
that it could be done for the original
mouth from someone and I think we need
to flush that out to make sure that what
was said can be done and you know I'm
all for options and I don't want us to
hamstring as this project but when
someone says we think it can be done for
that and I think me too
to vet that and flush it out to make
sure that what they said was true or at
least find out why it's not yes so so in
that case is it possible to to like
approve the the 24 well the total but
ask that we it be brought back to us
what we're spending it on what this
looks like so we can go ahead with the
project you understand what I'm saying
yes we want to put more strings on it is
basically what it comes down to we want
to see where that difference in that
money's gonna go if we actually have to
spend it between the 24 and the 27 does
that make sense it does I mean I I mean
just Jeff I mean maybe you can speak to
that point I mean it is the difference
if the project came in as we have been
it which is the entire project that's
where you're spending the money so if it
comes in at 27 million dollars we're
bidding the whole project and it's not a
just to code that term this increase to
go from the twenty four point eight the
twenty seven point five was not project
creep we did not change any of the
project scope to go to that point no I
don't think it's just increased in cost
so when we went through and did it we
believe the cost over where we were when
we built this budget than last year has
had that much kind of inflationary
impact to go this year so we haven't
changed it no I don't mean that
I'm not trying to imply that but what I
am is I'm following up on what Angela's
saying and that is that she'd like to
see and understand as well as I would
you know well so if somebody comes in
lower you know and we can do it for
let's say 25 mm-hmm you know what is
that you know that looks like that's
great that we'll take that that we will
take that lower bid though huh
it's just Angela will you say out loud
what you're saying yeah I just said I
mean we we can ask fitters to get we can
give material options and ask for
different bids based on the materials
and we saw parts of the building that
maybe had pricier materials and we can
afford I would say so I just want to
make sure that we're doing everything we
can to make sure that we are getting the
building we want for the lowest price
possible so like I said I just like to
have that discussion I mean I understand
what Doug saying people are gonna bid on
it and they're gonna bid a certain price
and that's what we're gonna have to pay
but at the question I think is what are
we having them bid on and we're having
them bit in an ivory tower and we can
only afford brick then we need to know
that the construction manager at risk
method gives us great ability to do that
was my reasons why we chose that method
of delivery is on the front end and we
give bids we look at those together and
find solutions to problems and so we'll
absolutely do that over the next week
and do everything we can to get it under
24 8 the market has driven the cost up
from the 24 8 not the scope Reese got us
to 24 8 and now its market cause it's
just commissioner Kane well I think
Commission media said it the other day
we don't need any bells and whistles but
the longer we wait the more expensive
it's kind of good and we knew this was a
big project when we took it on so if
it's that price it's that price but if
we heal around and doing all that's
gonna do is go up and I'm glad cuz our
guys get paid I don't want to put it off
to miss
I just want to follow along with with
Angela with what she's saying
well we certainly certainly will bring
back and show you what the scope of the
project is and what decisions were made
to come to it to determine what
materials were putting into it and if
there were some changes to reduce some
aspects or you know you know how we
reached a total and if you are giving me
authority to work within the 27 and a
half recognizing that the tools of you
know working with any of the reserve
money we are anticipating this year or
the first option being the transient
guest funding so let's say we came in at
twenty five point three million dollars
I essentially be taking that option and
that'd be it
but then in the last option being to do
anything to increase where we're at on
debt I'm good with that
just one final comment I support it you
know looking at cuts of one of the
reasons why it's because if we're
looking at cuts and and one of the
things we're saying is that we wouldn't
do a third-floor courtroom finish that
that alarms me given our current state
of affairs current look at all security
in all buildings and and something like
that strikes me as an important function
not only at the building but the
security overall so I want to add my
vote of consensus for the options you
brought forward okay thank you
next okay we had the case seven and
parallel project this is a three point
six million dollar project which quedan
has brought to us that they're funding
they've asked us to do maximum match
amount of three hundred thousand in
nineteen and twenty there was we had
considerable discussion about this as
they were here with is an are city
engineer to go over the project and I
believe there was differing opinions
from the Commission whether we continue
to build this into the 2019 budget or
not so mission or Walters I starts of my
right
datian or my suggestion last week was
that we eliminate this project from our
2018 excuse me 2019 and 2020 budget in
its entirety
I support Commissioner Walters and that
decision I don't travel that road much
but it is his district and I will tell
you the design I just I don't like the
design either it looks like the oblong
roundabouts and I'm as well as
commissioner Tina said I'm not a fan of
roundabouts so it's a road
I support Commissioner Walters
census both our districts I support
Commissioner Walters I'm gonna suggest
that there are four who are not in an
agreement at least four so I don't see
strong consensus to move forward
although I would like to see it and I
know it's not my district so I'll just
say that I would suggest that I think
some of the concerns that Commissioner
Walters raises I think it seems to me a
lot of it comes down to what the fact
this will have on economic development
and what the ultimate development of
this stretch of highway will be that is
trying to turn it into a superhighway
and whether other options in play that
were not brought to us by KDOT those are
I think significant concerns and perhaps
is this coming year we can get more
information on this and then bring this
back up next year
yes mr. Kane when they do it I think
they should sit down with us and fully
explain what's going on I'm not an
engineer fully explain what's going on
you know and say all right this this and
that
here's your options but when we talked
about that before I mean this was the
superhighway and this was gonna be all
this and the baggage ship Cindy Cass was
there on that ran it you know and that
was from one extreme to another so I
think they'd be better served you we
knew more about the project and we know
now and so it's decided so this will
remain in the budget as it currently is
he's asking to remove it no okay
knowing that though it's all day okay
next slide so the first item I will say
I don't know that I have to really show
anything because it is in the budget
that way and we I've recommended it at
the 27 and a half million dollar level
it's just our sources of revenue that
I'm working with the second item want me
to show that as a deduct okay next slide
all right these are procedural changes
not ones that I feel like we need to do
but we was brought up that we needed to
look at how we were mowing our right
away last year we brought forward a
policy to stop mowing in the right away
and make the homeowners that own that
property mow their own property that
we've had some concerns with that and I
know there was brought forward that
that's something we needed we probably
need to look at so I've asked mr. Fisher
to go back through this and he has
developed some procedural changes I
think that can put us back into to
mowing some of the right away worse
needed no less Jeff step through these
sure we anticipated that we would run
into these sorts of things my past
experience we did as well so we are we
are prepared to shift resources in a
limited way and we kind of have
highlighted some criteria here for staff
will have to work with codes as well
through this just to make sure that
we're not gonna mow anything that's
gonna be abated in two days or something
like that but essentially what we'll do
is we'll identify or monitor the
roadways as we have been and things
segments of road or corridors or areas
that month that are creating a hazard to
motorists pedestrians and bicyclists or
are creating obstacles for pedestrians
around the schools area we would we
would mow and then also special
consideration for those primary arterial
those major arterial roadways like you
see there state Avenue parallel etc
we can do that and respond very quickly
but again will work and kind of seamless
collaboration with codes to make sure
we're not conflicting or being redundant
in any way so we thought we could do
this pretty quickly get on top of things
follow up with those property owners
another front another friendly letter to
remind them that that is their
responsibility and then if we have to do
it again and we could build them there
any questions regarding that Richard
it's one question and I should have
picked up on this and earlier
discussions but you mentioned your past
experiences with making this transition
I'm just curious I'm assuming that at
some point you felt like you made a B
semi successful transition or you
wouldn't be going through that here so
I'm curious we kind of outline what
happened in your previous experiences
and did you eventually get to a happier
place we did it was a smaller scale it
only took us one year of this kind of
pain points to get through that in the
second year hardly had anything
obviously we're 2400 Lane miles here in
Wyandotte County so it's probably going
to take 2 or 3 years to get through this
I think it's worth reminding and
especially for the public the drivers
behind this is Street maintenance we we
have some work to do and pass to citizen
surveys they wanted them more influence
more emphasis on Street maintenance and
mowing right away is not Street
maintenance and so we have 70 FTEs on
2400 Lane miles like we saw last week in
the presentation compared to some other
agencies in the area that's Overland
Park 77 to give you an example and so
we're gonna increase our 56 PCI to 70 or
something that is more acceptable I
think these are things we need to do
so last year we implemented this change
we didn't have a budget reduction we
just had a redirection of staff
resources as Jeff said so in order to go
back on components of it not seeking
additional money he will just be
redirecting some of the people he's put
on some of the street maintenance work
back to do this right away maintenance
work to do it and we'll be sharing that
as we move through the process there's
no financial change yes I just ask that
once mowing season is over whenever that
is maybe you could bring Standing
Committee a report on how this went and
absolutely further adjustments that you
might make to the program for next year
for an even smoother transition I think
that would be helpful I'd also like to
add how can the commissioners help in
furthering the information and getting
it out to folks so they understand what
this really means and so I I'm
constantly talking to everybody and tell
them they have responsibilities but they
also there's also issues to where they
can't deal with them so now we'll be
working together I might add I was
talking with staff earlier and in some
areas like on the major arterials where
the ug was mowing that right away or
some of that I was awesome obviously
very frequent but some of these more
rural areas like we spoke today I don't
think the expectation is that they mow
it every month or every two weeks you
know we were only mowing some of those
areas twice a year right so and I was
acceptable so I think the inspectors are
doing a good job they understand that
okay next topic all right so these are
ones that I believe the Commissioner has
had future expectations the first one
I'm quite clear on where we're with this
one and that is the Western fire station
that we will provide monthly reports to
the Standing Committee regarding this
work there was a comment made or a
couple of them toward there's a state
employee to come to do the statewide
economic overview is that an expectation
that they would come back to the full
commission and a full commission meeting
or what was just want to make sure that
was something you want us to do or so is
this an economic forecast for the state
or revenues or Commissioner that we have
an opportunity here the impact and the
economic opportunities are happening all
across Kansas some of the challenges we
face as a state
now it's may filter down to what we do
moving our budget forward some of the
projects we see we've had a tremendous
plethora of discussion over the last six
weeks in reference to this budget and I
think there's some fiscal impact that
the economy and the report from the
state may have on our budget and I just
recommended that suggested that we have
the individual come in and give an
overview I leave a fully up to the
Commission if you care not to have the
presentation and a full commission
meeting but would just soon have it in a
small subcommittee meetings just let me
know and I'll work the Kathleen we'll
see if we can get it arranged but I
would find I found it very interesting
that that found that very pertinent to
the discussion we're having to see them
yeah I'd like to hear it too there you
are
so we'll look at that for a special
session that'll work
the next one I think targets toward our
fall retreat and that would be they were
looking at economic development planning
project area strategic planning I think
that falls into what we would do during
the fall retreat if I'm reading that
correctly and then I think we had the
same discussion about liberal
neighbourhood staffing that that needed
to be considered in coordinating with
other priorities for staffing and where
we might want to put our emphasis and
then we would talk about that again as
we look about those areas during the
retreat time very good
so I'd entertain a motion to go into
executive session to discuss matters
related to employer employee
negotiations all right I knew that the
Commission go into executive session
until 8:15 p.m. to discuss confidential
matters regarding the status and future
direction of labor negotiations all is
justified under the employer employee
negotiate negotiate exception the Kansas
Open Meetings Act and the staff does it
designated by the county and minister to
be present to participate in the
discussion and that we reconvene in open
session at 8:15 p.m. here in the fifth
floor conference room second 8:15
it's too oh goodness that was the motion
in second yep roll call
hi you said how do we need a roll call
for this nope nope okay all in favor
you